[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71624-71630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28446]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0002]
RIN 1904-AC93
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial
Clothes Washers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 11, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test
procedures for commercial clothes washers (CCWs). That proposed
rulemaking serves as the basis for today's action. DOE is issuing a
final rule making a technical correction to the certification reporting
requirements for CCWs established under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), adopting a new test procedure to be used to
determine compliance with any revised energy conservation standards for
CCWs, and clarifying the dates for which the current and new test
procedures must be used to determine compliance with existing energy
conservation standards and any future revised energy conservation
standards for CCWs.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket for this rulemaking can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-TP-0002. The
regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
[email protected].
Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Early Use of Appendix J2 for Current Energy Conservation
Standards
B. Drying Energy Calculation
C. Water Heating Calculation
D. Temperature Use Factors
E. Technical Correction to 10 Code of Federal Regulations 429.46
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA''), Pub. L. 94-163, sets forth a variety
of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.\1\
[[Page 71625]]
Part C of title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as
Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-17, as
codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment.'' The program includes CCWs, the subject of
today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of
covered equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that
their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of those equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 6314(d) and 6316(a))
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a))
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) amended EPCA by adding CCWs
as one of the covered equipment types under Part A-1, among other
changes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) EPACT established the definition and
the first energy conservation standards for CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(21)
and 6313(e)(1))
EPACT also directed DOE to conduct two rulemakings to determine
whether the established standards for CCWs should be amended. (42
U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)) DOE published its first final rule amending CCW
standards on January 8, 2010 (``January 2010 final rule''), which
applies to CCWs manufactured on or after January 8, 2013. 75 FR 1122.
EPACT required the second final rule to be published by January 1,
2015. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(B)(i)) Any amended standards would apply to
CCWs manufactured three years after the date on which the final amended
standard would be published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE is
currently conducting its second standards rulemaking to satisfy this
requirement and published a NOPR on March 4, 2014 (hereafter, the
``March 2014 standards NOPR'').\2\ 79 FR 12303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020. For more information,
see DOE's CCW rulemaking Web page at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCW standards established by the January 2010 final rule are
based on the MEF and WF metrics as measured using DOE's clothes washer
test procedure at 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430,
subpart B, appendix J1 (``appendix J1''). On March 7, 2012, DOE
published a final rule (hereafter, the ``March 2012 final rule'')
establishing a new clothes washer test procedure at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J2 (``appendix J2''). 77 FR 13888. Due to the
substantive amendments in appendix J2, the calculated values of MEF and
WF in appendix J2 are not equivalent to the calculated values of MEF
and WF in appendix J1. Beginning March 7, 2015, manufacturers of
residential clothes washers will be required to use appendix J2 to
demonstrate compliance with new standards that also become effective on
that date. This final rule adopts appendix J2 for CCWs such that
manufacturers of commercial clothes washers will be required to use
appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance with any future amended standards
adopted as part of the current CCW standards rulemaking.
On February 11, 2014, DOE published a NOPR to revise its test
procedures and certification reporting requirements for CCWs
(hereafter, the ``February 2014 NOPR''). 79 FR 8112. DOE proposed
amending the certification requirements for CCWs to allow the use of
either appendix J1 or appendix J2, in conjunction with conversion
equations, to demonstrate compliance with the current energy
conservation standards established by the January 2010 final rule. 75
FR 1122; 79 FR 8112, 8113-8114. The proposal included the numerical
equations for translating MEF and WF values as measured using appendix
J2 into equivalent appendix J1 values. CCW manufacturers using appendix
J2 would be required to use the conversion equations to translate the
measured efficiency metrics into equivalent appendix J1 values. The use
of appendix J2 would be required to demonstrate compliance with any
amended energy conservation standards for CCWs to be published in a
final rule by January 1, 2015, and the conversion equations would no
longer be used at that time.
Today's rule does not adopt the February 2014 NOPR proposal to
include numerical equations for translating MEF and WF values as
measured using appendix J2 into equivalent appendix J1 values until a
final rule amending energy conservation standards is published. Today's
rule clarifies that CCW manufacturers must use appendix J1 to
demonstrate compliance with the current energy conservation standards.
In addition, DOE is adopting appendix J2 for CCWs such that CCW
manufacturers must use appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance with any
future amended energy conservation standards (to be published in a
final rule by January 1, 2015). Today's rule fulfills DOE's obligation
to periodically review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test
procedure will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out
in this provision.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
Manufacturers of CCWs must use appendix J1 to demonstrate
compliance with the current standards established by the January 2010
final rule. However, manufacturers of CCWs must use appendix J2 to
demonstrate compliance with any amended energy conservation standards
that would be published in a final rule by January 1, 2015.
In addition, this final rule amends 10 CFR 431.152 to provide
definitions for the appendix J1 and appendix J2 energy and water
metrics: (1) IWF, defined as the integrated water factor value
calculated using appendix J2; (2) MEF, defined as the modified energy
factor value calculated using appendix J1; (3) MEFJ2,
defined as the modified energy factor value calculated using appendix
J2; and (4) WF, defined as the water factor value calculated using
appendix J1.
DOE also amends the test procedures for CCWs at 10 CFR 431.154 to
specify that appendix J1 must be used to determine compliance with
existing energy conservation standards and appendix J2 must be used to
determine compliance with any future revised energy conservation
standards for CCWs.
This final rule also corrects a technical error in the
certification and reporting requirements for CCWs at 10 CFR 429.46 by
listing the water factor as one of the measures of energy or water
consumption for which consumers would favor a lower value.
III. Discussion
A. Early Use of Appendix J2 for Current Energy Conservation Standards
As discussed above, DOE proposed in the February 2014 NOPR to
provide equations for translating MEF and WF values as measured using
appendix J2 into their equivalent values as measured using appendix J1.
This would enable manufacturers to use appendix J2 to demonstrate
compliance with the current energy conservation standards, which are
based on appendix J1.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool
[[Page 71626]]
Corporation (Whirlpool), and Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS) strongly
oppose DOE's proposal to permit early compliance with Appendix J2,
through the use of the proposed translation equations, three years
before it becomes mandatory for CCWs. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 2-3;
Whirlpool, No. 3 at p. 1; ALS, No. 4 at p. 1) \3\ \4\ \5\ AHAM stated
that although it had sought early compliance with regard to residential
refrigerator/freezers and residential clothes washers, it did so with
the limited purpose of easing the burden associated with manufacturers
transitioning their full product lines to comply with amended standards
on one date. Accordingly, AHAM stated that it strongly supported, and
continues to support, DOE's guidance permitting early compliance with
new or amended test procedures for satisfying applicable new or amended
standards.\6\ (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information
that is in the docket for DOE's test procedure rulemaking for CCWs
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0002), which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that AHAM's statement
preceding the reference can be found in document number 4 in the
docket, and appears at page 1 of that document.
\4\ Whirlpool Corporation submitted a written comment stating
that it worked closely with AHAM in the development of AHAM's
submitted comments, and that Whirlpool strongly supports the
positions taken by AHAM. Throughout this final rule, reference to
AHAM's written comments should be considered reflective of
Whirlpool's position as well.
\5\ ALS submitted a written comment stating that it supports
AHAM's public comments for this NOPR. Throughout this final rule,
reference to AHAM's comments should be considered reflective of ALS'
position as well.
\6\ DOE guidance, ``When may an amended test procedure be used
to test, rate and certify products prior to the compliance date for
new standards?'' available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/detail_search.aspx?IDQuestion=658 &pid=2&spid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM added that it believes that permitting manufacturers to
demonstrate early compliance with an applicable standard using two
different test procedures is contrary to the intent of the EPCA, as
amended. AHAM stated that the major value of test procedures, labeling,
and the restrictions on energy-related representations inconsistent
with the required test procedure is to provide consumers with accurate,
credible, and comparative energy information. AHAM believes that value
would be undermined if manufacturers are authorized to provide energy
information under more than one test procedure, particularly if the
energy descriptor stays the same. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 2)
AHAM stated that its concerns are most acute when the amended test
procedure impacts measured energy, in which case, a manufacturer could
choose the test procedure that will permit CCWs to meet the standard
and make more advantageous energy-related claims. AHAM believes that
this concern does not disappear if DOE requires a translation equation
or ``crosswalk'' from one standard to another because such a
translation equation, at best, provides an estimate of a CCW's measured
energy use, but it cannot accurately represent the measured energy of
every CCW. AHAM noted that the translation equations represent an
average approximation, but that approximation is only based on the test
results from a subset of models on the market. According to AHAM, EPCA
does not contemplate the use of approximate values to make energy-
related representations. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 2)
Finally, AHAM stated it believes that DOE's permitted use of
different test procedures to demonstrate compliance with standards
presents challenges for verification. Because third parties could also
test with either test procedure, and a translation equation only
provides an approximation, third parties may get different results than
the manufacturers if the third parties use a different procedure. AHAM
stated that should DOE proceed, over AHAM's strong objection, to permit
early compliance with appendix J2 through the use of translation
equations, AHAM requests that DOE specify that third party testing and
verification testing must be done using the same test procedure that
was used for certification purposes. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 3)
ALS also strongly objected to allowing the early use of appendix J2
before it will become mandatory in 2018. (ALS, No. 4 at p. 1) ALS also
stated that it strongly objects to the use of translation equations
developed by DOE, which are based on testing of limited numbers of
existing models, but may not have included all existing compliant
models. ALS believes that EPCA does not allow using translation
equations, which may not guarantee that all existing certified models,
which were certified based on tests to appendix J1, would remain in
compliance to the minimum standard when judged by testing to appendix
J2 and employing the translation equations. (ALS, No. 4 at p. 1)
DOE did not receive any comments objecting to the translation
equations as proposed, aside from the issue of whether to permit the
use of appendix J2 in conjunction with the translation equations to
determine compliance with the current standards, as described in the
previous section.
In consideration of the comments received, DOE has determined it
will not adopt the translation equations. Today's final rule requires
that manufacturers of CCWs use appendix J1 to demonstrate compliance
with the current standards established by the January 2010 final rule.
The use of appendix J2 will be required to demonstrate compliance with
any amended energy conservation standards to be published in a final
rule by January 1, 2015.
Today's final rule also amends 10 CFR 431.152 to provide clarifying
definitions for the energy and water descriptors for CCWs to better
differentiate between the two test procedures. Consistent with the
current CCW standards, the amendments define MEF and WF as the modified
energy factor and water factor values, respectively, calculated using
appendix J1. To accommodate any future amended standards for CCWs, the
amendments define MEFJ2 and IWF as the modified energy
factor and integrated water factor values, respectively, calculated
using appendix J2.\7\ Since the calculated value of modified energy
factor in appendix J2 is not equivalent to the calculated value of
modified energy factor in appendix J1, adding the ``J2'' subscript to
the appendix J2 MEF descriptor will avoid any potential ambiguity that
would result from using the same energy descriptor for both test
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In the March 2014 standards NOPR, DOE proposed amended
standards for CCWs based on the MEF and IWF metrics as measured
using appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Drying Energy Calculation
Section 4.3 of appendix J2 provides the calculation of per-cycle
energy consumption for removal of moisture from the test load (i.e.,
the drying energy), which is one of the energy components used to
calculate MEF. The drying energy is calculated as the product of: (1)
The weighted average load size; (2) the remaining moisture content
minus 4%; (3) the dryer usage factor of 0.91; and (4) the nominal
energy required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture from clothing,
defined as 0.5 kWh/lb.
In the February 2014 NOPR, DOE responded to comments received from
interested parties as part of the concurrent energy conservation
standards rulemaking for CCWs. 79 FR 8112, 8116-18. Southern Company
had requested that DOE incorporate a variable DEF, and the National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP) suggested that DOE
[[Page 71627]]
should account for the percentage of market features such as dryer
moisture sensors or timer-activated termination controls in commercial
clothes dryers. 79 FR 8112, 8117. In response, DOE explained in the
February 2014 NOPR that the calculation of drying energy in the clothes
washer test procedure is only intended to provide a nominal estimate of
associated drying energy that can be used to distinguish among clothes
washer models that provide varying degrees of remaining moisture in the
clothing load, which provides a consistent basis of comparison across
all types of clothes washers. Id. In addition, DOE stated that it did
not have consumer usage data that would indicate how consumer usage of
commercial clothes dryers might differ from residential clothes dryers.
Id. DOE also did not have data indicating the prevalence of features in
commercial clothes dryers, such as moisture sensors, that would affect
the drying times. Id. Such data would be required to support any
changes in the test procedure calculations. Therefore, DOE did not
propose any changes to the drying energy calculation.
In its comments submitted in response to the February 2014 NOPR,
AHAM agrees that the calculation of drying energy in the clothes washer
test procedure is intended to provide a nominal estimate of associated
drying energy that can be used to distinguish clothes washer models by
degree of remaining moisture in the clothing load, which provides a
consistent basis on which to compare clothes washers. AHAM also
confirms that consumer usage data is not available to indicate how
consumer usage of commercial clothes dryers might differ from
residential clothes dryers, or the prevalence of features in commercial
clothes dryers, such as moisture sensors, that would affect the drying
times. AHAM agrees that such data would be required in order for DOE to
amend the test procedure and therefore supports DOE's decision not to
amend the test procedure in the absence of such data. (AHAM, No. 2 at
p. 3)
ALS supports DOE's response that the drying energy calculation is
intended to be a nominal estimate of drying energy. ALS also supports
DOE's response that data does not exist on the prevalence of moisture
sensors or other features on commercial clothes dryers, which would be
needed to support the test procedure change. (ALS, No. 4 at pp. 1-2)
DOE received no additional comments in support of amending the
dryer energy calculation for CCWs. Today's final rule does not include
any changes to the drying energy calculation for CCWs.
C. Water Heating Calculation
Section 4.1.3 of appendix J2 provides the calculation of total
weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption (i.e., the water
heating energy), which is one of the energy components used to
calculate MEF. The water heating energy calculations assume a 100%
efficient electric water heater that provides a water heating value of
0.00240 kWh/gal/[deg]F. Section 4.1.4 of the test procedure also
provides a conversion for gas water heating, assuming a gas water
heater efficiency of 75%. However, the gas water heating calculation is
not used in any calculations within the DOE test procedure; rather, it
is only used with the Federal Trade Commission's EnergyGuide label for
calculating the estimated yearly cost of a clothes washer when used
with a natural gas water heater. (16 CFR 305, Appendix L).
As part of the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking
for CCWs, Southern Company had suggested that the assumed water heater
efficiencies should be updated as the weighted efficiency of installed
water heaters changes over time, as electric heat pump water heaters
and gas condensing water heaters gain market share. DOE responded in
the February 2014 NOPR that, much like the drying energy calculation
described in the previous section of this notice, the calculation of
water heating energy in the clothes washer test procedure is only
intended to provide a nominal estimate of water heating energy that can
be used to distinguish among clothes washer models that use different
amounts of hot water, which provides a consistent basis of comparison
across all types of clothes washers. Therefore, DOE did not propose any
changes to the water heating calculation for CCWs in the February 2014
NOPR. 79 FR 8112, 8117-8118.
ALS supports DOE's response that the calculation for water heating
is intended to provide a nominal estimate of water heating energy. ALS
noted that the existing test procedure uses electric water heating for
the water heating calculation, even though other types of water heating
(including gas, solar, and steam water heating) are in use throughout
the United States. (ALS, No. 4 at p. 2) AHAM agrees with DOE's decision
not to amend the water heating calculation and its reasoning for making
that determination. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 3)
DOE received no comments in support of amending the water heating
calculation for CCWs. Today's final rule does not include any changes
to the water heating calculation for CCWs.
D. Temperature Use Factors
Table 4.1.1 of appendix J2 provides the Temperature Use Factors
(TUFs), which represent the percentage of wash cycles performed by end-
users at each available wash/rinse temperature. For a clothes washer
with cold, warm, and hot wash cycles (all with cold rinse), which DOE
testing indicates is the most common combination found on CCWs, the
TUFs are assigned as follows: Cold wash 37%; warm wash 49%; and hot
wash 14%.
As part of the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking
for CCWs, NRDC and ASAP had suggested that the cold temperature usage
factor of 37% should be corroborated for the commercial environment.
DOE responded that it did not have consumer usage data indicating the
prevalence of cold wash cycles performed on CCWs. Such data would be
required to consider any changes in the test procedure calculations.
Therefore, DOE did not propose any changes to the TUFs. 79 FR 8112,
8118.
ALS supports DOE's response that DOE does not have usage data
indicating the prevalence of cold wash cycles being used on CCWs. (ALS,
No. 4 at p. 2) AHAM supports DOE's decision not to amend the TUFs in
the absence of such necessary data. (AHAM No. 2 at p. 4)
DOE received no comments in support of amending the TUFs for CCWs.
Today's final rule does not include any changes to the TUFs for CCWs.
E. Technical Correction to 10 CFR 429.46
Currently, 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(ii) includes ``water factor'' in the
list of measures of energy or water consumption for which consumers
would favor a higher value. However, a higher water factor value
indicates higher (i.e., less favorable) water consumption. Therefore,
water factor should be listed in 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(i) as one of the
measures of energy or water consumption for which consumers would favor
a lower value. Today's final rule corrects this technical error.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute
[[Page 71628]]
``significant regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4,
1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an final regulatory flexibility analysis (FFRA) for any
rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
factual basis for this certification is as follows:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity
to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121.
These size standards and codes are established by the 2007 North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number
for NAICS classification code 333312--which applies to commercial
laundry, dry cleaning, and pressing machine manufacturers--is 500
employees. Searches of the SBA Web site \8\ to identify CCW
manufacturers within this NAICS classification number did not identify
any small businesses that manufacture CCWs. Additionally, DOE checked
its own publicly available Compliance Certification Database \9\ to
identify manufacturers of CCWs and also did not identify any
manufacturers of CCWs that employ less than 500 people. In addition,
today's final rule does not implement any physical changes to the test
methods; it merely clarifies compliance dates and corrects a reporting
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is
available online at: http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
\9\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available online
at: http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that today's final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has
transmitted the certification and supporting statement of factual basis
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C.
605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of CCWs must certify to DOE that their equipment
complies with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment
according to the DOE test procedures for CCWs, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including CCWs. 76 FR 12422
(March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the
certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been
approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for CCWs. DOE has
determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an
existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental
impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that
interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the
environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
equipment that is the subject of today's final rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for
[[Page 71629]]
affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote
simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order
12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed
the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by
law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) For
a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure
by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted
annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs,
benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),
(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective
process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and
Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental
mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving notice and
opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a
statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's final rule according to UMRA and
its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither
an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements
do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition. DOE is not requiring the use of any commercial standards
in this rulemaking, so these requirements do not apply.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
[[Page 71630]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 24, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Section 429.46 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
introductory text, (a)(2)(ii) introductory text, and (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.46 Commercial clothes washers.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Any represented value of the water factor or other measure of
energy or water consumption of a basic model for which consumers would
favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
* * * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the modified energy factor or other
measure of energy or water consumption of a basic model for which
consumers would favor higher values shall be greater than or equal to
the higher of:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall
include the following public product-specific information:
(i) If testing was conducted using Appendix J1 to subpart B of part
430 of this chapter: The modified energy factor (MEF) in cubic feet per
kilowatt hour per cycle (cu ft/kWh/cycle); and the water factor (WF) in
gallons per cubic feet per cycle (gal/cu ft/cycle);
(ii) If testing was conducted using Appendix J2 to subpart B of
part 430 of this chapter: The modified energy factor (MEFJ2)
in cu ft/kWh/cycle and the integrated water factor (IWF) in gal/cu ft/
cycle.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
3. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317
0
4. Section 431.152 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions for IWF, MEF, MEFJ2, and WF to read as follows:
Sec. 431.152 Definitions concerning commercial clothes washers.
* * * * *
IWF means integrated water factor, in gallons per cubic feet per
cycle (gal/cu ft/cycle), as determined in section 4.2.13 of Appendix J2
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
MEF means modified energy factor, in cubic feet per kilowatt hour
per cycle (cu ft/kWh/cycle), as determined in section 4.4 of Appendix
J1 to subpart B of part 430.
MEFJ2 means modified energy factor, in cu ft/kWh/cycle, as
determined in section 4.5 of Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430.
WF means water factor, in gal/cu ft/cycle, as determined in section
4.2.3 of Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430.
0
5. Section 431.154 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.154 Test procedures.
The test procedures for clothes washers in Appendix J1 to subpart B
of part 430 of this chapter must be used to test commercial clothes
washers to determine compliance with the energy conservation standards
at Sec. 431.156(b). The test procedures for clothes washers in
Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 of this title must be used to
determine compliance with any amended standards based on Appendix J2
efficiency metrics published after December 3, 2014.
[FR Doc. 2014-28446 Filed 12-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P